Slashdot Mirror
Update — No DRM In New iPod Shuffle
An anonymous reader writes "BoingBoing Gadgets has updated their story from yesterday on DRM contained in the new iPod Shuffle. (We also discussed this rumor last week.) It's a false alarm. There is a chip in the headphone controls but it is just an encoder chip. There is no DRM and no reason to believe that third party headphones wouldn't work with the new Shuffle. (Apple would still prefer you to license the encoder under the Made for iPod program, but with no DRM, there is no DMCA risk to a manufacturer reverse engineering it.) The money quote: 'For the record, we do not believe that the new iPod headphones with in-line remote use DRM that affects audio playback in any way.'"
* Mobile phones & Ipods (make sure user can't run Apps which haven't paid the Apple tax)
* In their O/S (Check it's installed on correct hardware)
* ITMS (video)
* Video out of Iphone (make sure you can't use third party docks to watch ipod/iphone vids on your TV.
So frankly, DRM on Apple products was not surprising - it was a natural assumption to make.
Is the real story.
/. for lying, and then a second time for admitting they lied.
What disappoints me is that Boing Boing get on the front page of
The real story is Boing Boing is an unreliable site: who'd have thought that on the interwebs there would be dishonest sites *shock* *horror*!
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
"that affects audio playback in any way"
hmm - but might affect you ability to sell an interoperable device?
Screw the iPod. Just give me a DIY kit on making a vacuum tube AM radio (I'm a talk radio buff). Sometimes it's nice to get away from the digital realm for awhile.
Life is not for the lazy.
prepare for smug flood.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Please stop calling authentication chips DRM. DRM = digital rights management, its for digital content, you cant physically have DRM on a headphone cord.
So are all those sites that posted rumors going to retract? iLounge, Consumerist, Engadget, Gizmodo, etc. The only honest source during this whole controversy was boingboing, who said that they are not electrical engineers and can't be sure of what it does.
If a company wants to make an MP3 player with buttons on the headphone cable, instead of on the device, why is that evil?
Why is everyone going mental? So you can't use the headphones you already have, so what? Just buy a different MP3 player!
Lots of people don't care much what headphones they have, they just wanna listen to music while exercising, and they want a small light device to do that. By the end of the month there will even be a handful of other headphones to choose from.
There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack, and you'll be buried in lawsuits if you do it the same as someone else is doing it, so a new approach had to be made. Why is this such a big deal? We're stifling innovation by making a scene over stuff like this.
I was just thinking about buying an iPod shuffle. Good thing I read this article that reminds me that I have to use the headphones that come with it, and I don't like those headphones nearly as much as I like my headphones. Hmm, I could probably splice the cable without tooo much trouble.
While this was a false alarm, Slashdot will still consider Apple evil, right?
What I mean is the standard 3.5mm jack is simple, and works brilliantly for it's intended role. So why mess with it?
"Made for 3rd generation iPod shuffle" is fairly simple, but 99% of people would have no idea what generation their iclod is (/. crowd aside).
"Plug these in, hear music" is even more simple, and how it should be.
- There is no point, it's like a sphere -
...a failing world economy, an ecosystem being taxed to it's limits.
...and a fucking ipod the most important thing people have to discuss.
Apple +1, Universe -1
They're just pissed their voices aren't THE VOICES of the new shuffle.
I would like to sincerely apologise for my knee-jerk baseless mouth-frothing over the DRM boogeyman that I seem to see everywhere. My remarks were totally unfounded and uncalled for; in short, I was a total douche.
Yours in shame,
A vocal minority of reactionary fuckwits.
Slashdot will still consider Apple evil, right?
I could probably splice the cable without tooo much trouble.
And a few hours later, some clever basement denizen in a Scandinavian country runs into the DRM while trying to cross blend the iDevice with a more obscure Linux distro. The intertubes was horrified to discover the Truth about DRM, again.
Aargh, they're back! Keep them away! Those men in dark robes, with hoods over their heads: chanting, chanting....
It was pretty obvious last week, and anyone with common sense would see it wasn't DRM in the first place, it was just BB being sensational.
Ok well why you think Boing Boing being on the front page of /. means that they're not on the front page of slashdot is beyond me. The article starts out, "BoingBoing Gadgets" then links to BoingBoing. How is that not being on the front page of slashdot? iLounge and CNET are equally culpable since they're nothing but crap rags that do this stuff all the time. The only ones who got it right the first time and checked their sources were MacWorld. "Hysterical Apple Fanboi" indeed. More like Hysterical Cory Doctorow fanboy, i.e.: you. Then you agree to Boing Boing being an unreliable site after defending to the death in all the comments here just so you look like you're rolling along instead of fantasizing about licking Cory's naked body. You make me sick.
What I mean is the standard 3.5mm jack is simple, and works brilliantly for it's intended role. So why mess with it?
I guess that would be because 3.5mm jacks don't carry remote control signals. Really this whole argument is a joke â" we're complaining at apple because they put a remote interface on their headphones, something that other companies have been doing since god knows when. Not only that, but apple have a good history of allowing 3rd parties to see those specs and get verified as producing a decent quality remote that actually does the right thing.
When was the last time you saw a third party remote for a random mp3 player? If you did by some chance, when was the last time you saw one that didn't go through the exact same process as apple are using here?
It's a digital chip to restrict rights. DRM.
In this case it's to prevent companies copying the cable. But it's the same problem with Apple, a lock-in that ends up costing you lots of money.
Give this rubbish player a miss.
Then you agree to Boing Boing being an unreliable site after defending to the death in all the comments here just so you look like you're rolling along instead of fantasizing about licking Cory's naked body. You make me sick.
Sounds like you've thought it through a little farther than necessary, there, pardner
As many others said, the simple reason is because the headphone is meant to work as a remote controller, so that Apple can eliminate all controls from the surface of the iPod. Nothing so innovative - we had CD players and tape recorders with remotes for years. The remotes disappeared because, I think, the media players got compact enough, so that they no longer need to have remotes to control the players that previously had to stay somewhere inside a pocket or some kind of bag.
Just think of the smallest media players - they are already as small as the remote controllers we used decades ago. why in world do we need a remote when the media player itself is small enough? Looks like a flawed design decision.
Nah, I'll never buy it anyway.
yes, other companies have been putting inline controls in headphones for years, but that's in addition to the controls on the unit, not instead of, most of these devices would still work just as well with standard headphones.
Blazing Spiders
And so will the shuffle. Plug in 3.5mm headphones, turn on, listen to music.
By "work just as well" i mean you'd still have all the controls available, with no controls available when using standard headphones, that's not working just as well.
Blazing Spiders
it's very loud, how do I turn it down? oh, that's right, I cant
If you don't like the new headphones - don't frikkin buy a new shuffle.
You're telling me to wake up??? Sheesh!
He was being nice. I'd tell you to pull your head out, as there are no set standards for you to whine about. If Apple wants to release an mp3 player that only works with an infrared remote control and bluetooth headphones, that's their business. And you of course are free to take your business elsewhere.
My Creative Muvo MP3 player came with a pair standard ear-buds. They were too big for my ears, though, so I replaced them with another pair of standard ear-buds, with no loss in functionality of anything.
This is the same player that uses a standard AAA battery.
But then, I went shopping for something that worked, rather than something popular.
Use any standard analog inline volume adapter, or set of headphones with such a thing in the cord ;)
Oh grow up fanboy. They linked to someone elses story, with caveats.
Oh pull your head out. The Boing Boing headline
Remember that old saw about how "a lie travels around the world before the truth has a chance to put it's shoes on"? The original liar obviously deserves most of the blame, but that doesn't absolve everyone who spread the lie of responsibility.
Because the reactionaries haven't realized that these headphones are the device. The stick part of the shuffle is only there because the engineers haven't yet shrunk it out of existence. If you buy the new Shuffle you're buying earbuds that play music with controls on the cable.
Since these fancy earbuds are also cheap, complaining that you can't replace them with other headphones is like complaining that a transistor radio won't interface with your $2,000 stereo components.
I've gone through at least three pairs of ear buds for my iPod because if I forget them out, my cats like to chew on the ends. So I ran out to Target and got a replacement pair for $12 from some shmoe brand.
But then, I just wanted to listen to music on something that works, not put on airs of superiority online while jerking off.
Other companies don't force you to use their jack, either by removing all non-inline controls or by making a proprietary jack (not that I'm saying Apple's done this, but they may as well have). I don't believe that Apple, the company that made the ClickWheel and now have the iPod Touch (you know, the one with movement-sensitive controls) are so hard-pressed for interface solutions that they had to resort to proprietary in-line remotes. Even if they were, hey, here's an idea, put a 3.5mm jack on the remote itself! Or put 2 jacks on it (F-style) and some cable clips/skirting/etc to clip the remote along your 3rd party headphone cable! Or make it cylindrical, put a sheath on half of the player, and twist said sheath to control it (think a motorbike accelerator or wringing a towel dry, only smaller and with your fingers)! Wow, that was hard!
So you agree with 90% of what I said (you only quibble over whether to call what they did lying or ... well you don't even propose an alternative).
That makes you 90% of an "hysterical Apple fanboi" then.
The 10% you're missing is obviously the bit with the taste and the cash and the intellect.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
'For the record, we do not believe that the new iPod headphones with in-line remote use DRM that affects audio playback in any way.'"
I'm no lawyer but, this isn't a "Money Quote"....
"We do not believe" is no guaranty that it's not going to be doing just that later on...
End of Line.
The first person to create a remote control with a standard headphone jack on it for the iPod Shuffle 3G will make big money.
e.g. iPod => remote cable => remote => headphone cable => headphones of your choice
Unless Apple prevents that. We'll see whether they're really evil.
I've already seen this solution on an old Philips discman. I don't know why they didn't think about this.
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
It isn't standards compliant. When standards disintegrate the consumer pays.
You aware of the price consumers paid having to support "standards" like ISA, SCSI, RS232, Centronix, and others that "had to" be complied with, at considerable cost in $$$ and size and complexity, for years beyond any sane benefit.
It promotes vendor lock in. It isn't inter-operable with other equipment. Consider digital SLRs.
For some systems, inter-operability is a hindrance. You're buying into a SYSTEM, not an individual product, and forcing compatability among systems loses an edge some are willing to pay a price for.
Once you buy into a brand and you've invested in enough equipment you're stuck with that brand unless you sell it all and start again.
Welcome to life. Sometimes you have to sell out of an old system to buy into a new one; the old just can't be salvaged at some point.
People who are replacing an older model may not realize there is new lock in until they've actually bought the product.
Buyer beware. So long as the seller isn't devious/malicious; sometimes the buyer actually needs to make an intelligent choice.
When a market leader pulls this crap, others do too and pretty soon all the MP3 players you can buy have this "feature".
And progress is made. Apple "pulled this crap" by putting USB and FireWire on their computers, leading other manufacturers to eventually (thankfully) abandon Parallel Printer Ports, Serial Ports, and other fat-cable incompatable old crud. People bitched when FireWire was added; now they're bitching because it's going away.
Lots of people don't care much what headphones they have, they just wanna listen to music while exercising, and they want a small light device to do that.
And most of them are content with what came in the box. Alternatives ARE available, in and out of the Apple store, and there will be a plethora of options once other headphone manufacturers catch up.
What about those that do care about the headphones? What about those who can't use ear buds due to hearing or ear problems?
FOR THE Nth FING TIME: THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE COMPATIBLE HEADPHONES AVAILABLE. AND MORE WILL BE AVAILABLE SOON.
And maybe the Shuffle isn't for you anyway. Try a Nano, or buy a refurbished (and much cheaper!) older Shuffle. Or some other product. And - surprise - IIRC, if you plug in regular headphones it WILL play according to the power switch settings (it IS a SHUFFLE, with the whole idea being "just let it play").
"[There will be] other headphones to choose from." Not if there's a patent on the tech and Apple wants to lock them out
You have any basis for that allegation? TFA's point is that the much-derided headphone DRM isn't after all. Have you SEEN how much iPod-compatible crap there is out there? Apple surely isn't trying to "lock out" anyone.
If they aren't locked out there's a licensing fee which drives the price up of all the headphones
Not by much, considering how cheap some of that iPod-compatible crap there is.
There's no standard way to control a device from a standard headphone jack
Well maybe we should move on already. We're in the friggin' 21st Century!
Sounds like a good argument to develop a standard rather than applaud this bad behaviour.
Standards don't tend to happen until someone starts to make one. Apple is, and now other manufacturers have to either get on board or agree on their own.
This is innovation? Seriously? Controlling a player externally via a proprietary cable? Really??? If this is considered innovation, there's a real problem.
Well, considering how much it's upsetting you (and others), there must really be something to it.
Get a grip, people. Standard dumb headphones are so last-century. One company adds minor functionality to their bottom-end product, and suddenly everyone is freaking out as if every gas station switched to hydrogen.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Yes, good day sir. I wish to inform you that I shall NOT be refraining from raping your mother and eating your father. Please do not suffer the illusion that your parents will be left un-assailed.
There we are. Now I may ravage or consume your parents with utter impudence, because I never said I wouldn't (in fact, I strongly implied I would!).
Bother! It would STILL be evil, even if I proclaimed I were to do it! Amazing! Therefore, dishonesty is not necessarily a prerequisite of evil!
Ah yes, another crippling counterargument from a skilled orator. Well played sir, putting the word "wank" in your sentence sure annulled the fact that IT IS PRETTY DAMN EVIL TO INTENTIONALLY GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO SABOTAGE PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT THEIR HARDWARE TO PLAY NICE WITH THEIR SOFTWARE.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
This entirely misses the point though - without the Apple headphones there is no way to control the iPod, You can't pause, skip tracks, change volume etc. All it does is play when normal headphones are installed.
Most (all?) other MP3 players that use remote controls on the headphone line have the remote control as a separate part which you can use with any headphones you like. Even the old iPod remotes are like that. Now you have to buy a remote control just to use non-Apple headphones, and currently there isn't one available.
It's not DRM but that doesn't make it any more attractive to me.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I think it's perfectly valid to complain about that, since the design of the new shuffle is so stupid -- WTF is the point of having separate controls, when the separate controls are almost as big as the damn player itself?! The second-gen Shuffle was a much better design.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
They aren't non-standard either. 3.5mm contact with 4 contacts on it and buttons on the lead have been around for ages, I have no idea who started them or how interoperable they are. I had a pair that came with my Nokia N95, play, stop, forward, reverse, volume, on a standard sized 3.5 mm plug with one extra contact. That actually terminated in the remote which had a socket for any normal 3.5 mm three contact headphones, so you could use your nice sennheisers with the phone instead of the shitty nokia buds.
So has anyone tried the Apple ones with other equipment like phones that support remotes on 3.5mm jacks? I know for a fact Etymotics have a pair of headphones with remote and mic on a 3.5 mm contact.
I never liked those earbud 'phones anyway. If you buy one of those new
shuffles and have a pair of phones you'd rather use the solution is simple
(if you can solder). Just cut the cable anywhere between the control pod
and the earbuds, solder a 3.5mm stereo jack onto the cable, and plug in
your favorite pair of headphones. Unless Apple has done something
devious by using very high or low impedance in their phones your
headphones will now work fine, and you can still control your shuffle
using the controls on the cord of the old Apple earbuds.
Why is _everyone_ missing the point? :-)
The iPod Shuffle DOES NOT HAVE ANY BUTTONS ON IT!
You need a pair of headphones with a "remote control" device on them to use it.
Apple designed it like this so that you can put the player away, so you dont have to pull it out of your pocket to change songs, volume up/down pause etc.
The same goes for many mobile phones, the Sony PSP, if you want to provide extra functionality outside the 2 channel sound, you have to do something extra.
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
>>>And so will the shuffle. Plug in 3.5mm headphones, turn on, listen to music.
Might as well listen to the radio if you can't rewind, fast-forward, or skip songs. Apple's decision to not include controls on the actual device is stupid. It doesn't save money, because you still have to spend money on the appropriate buttons, whether they are on the Ipod of the headphones.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
but then you can't get it to start playing, since there's no play button...
You forget the target market for the Shuffle, people who want a ludicrously tiny player -- for whom the nano is excessively large... They like to work out while their player is clipped some random place, and they don't want to go looking for the buttons if they want to change tracks or whatever. The corded controls make a lot of sense for this segment -- buttons on the unit as well would probably have been way to tiny to use, most likely. Really what they should have done was just put inline remote support in a chassis like they had, but they were obviously feeling some pressure from somewhere to make it tinier.
The new iPod isn't FairPlay-compatible? Really? That's gonna piss off some old iTMS customers. And this new iPod will also play music even if the database (which apparently Apple thinks it holds the copyright to) isn't signed with Apple's key?
That's what "no DRM" would mean.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Apple has announced its new iPod Shuffle, the smallest yet. The new Shuffle offers more storage, better sound, a talking interface ("the first talking interface on an MP3 player! Except Rockbox, but only freetards use that and they don't count") and superior abilities to pick up chicks.
Controversy has surrounded the new hardware requirements for the Shuffle, including new Apple-branded headphones, Apple-branded music and surgical attachment of the device to one's genital region. "Total quality control," said Steve Jobs. "All competitors are inferior by definition and will be crushed."
Apple fan blogs were unanimous in their praise of the "iButtPlug" installation procedure. The hardware lock-in was a brilliant business move on Apple's part, the best possible thing for the consumer and a moral and ethical requirement to sell MP3 players at all, wrote Daniel Eran Dilger on RoughlyDrafted. He also intimated that all negative press on the matter was yet more Microsoft astroturf and vaporware.
Microsoft countered with a preannouncement of its new Zune LP player, which works with 9.5" vinyl discs manufactured with the PlaysYouBetcha!(tm) process and a cubic zirconia stylus.
"There's no such things as Zunes," laughed Jobs. "They're a fairy tale we invented to get young Apple Store employees to behave."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Gosh ... I wonder how so many people missed that.
Let's focus on this innovative design for a minute, shall we:
I can put the player away, in a pocket or something, and I never have to take it out to change tracks or volume or anything. Of course, we still know it's there, thanks to the bright white wires. I guess that the Apple designers have figured out that it looks uncool if I have to go fiddling around with this sleek button-free nexus of art and technology.
Instead, I now have a remote that interfaces with the headphones and not the base unit itself. (I didn't RTFM; I am basing this only on previous comments.) Of course, a remote is so cool that you never look dorkish pulling one out of your pocket or fiddling around with it, or trying to find it when it slips into the leather couch. The remote does have buttons, but it can be hidden out of sight when guests arrive, oh, in a pocket or behind a vase or something. And being wireless, I can now lose it anywhere!
That's brilliant. Thanks Apple!
Yes there is, the power button is a off/sequential play/shuffled play button, and is on the body of the device.
Do some research before you start whining.
That only turns the unit off, put it in sequential playback mode or shuffle playback mode.
There's no play/pause/skip forward/skip backward buttons on the player itself.
Do some research before your start talking about something.
Most other MP3 players are also a magnitude of order bigger than the new Shuffle. That was kind of the point here, the thing is too small to put any controls on.
While the new headphones are not standards compliant, and therefore I wouldn't be able to listen to the new shuffle with my old Grado headphones, I appreciate Apple trying to move forward with design innovations in their screen-less mp3 player. Unfortunately, strictly adhering to standards is often a barrier to innovation. There is nothing stopping 3rd-party vendors from creating headphones now, which will hopefully help perpetuate innovation of this design concept. Perhaps in the future this will help define a standard that has yet to be established. Only time will tell.
SDFBO. Apple will be heart broken all the way to the bank.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
If you want to use other ear-/head-phones, take the Apple supplied buds, cut them off above the remote control, solder a 3.5mm female on the cords and plug in your other pair. Turn in your geek cards now, all of you.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
It is big enough to have controls, they just chose to omit them. They could also have used the separate in-line controls like the older iPods and most other MP3 players use. You can bet that one of the first 3rd party devices on the market is an in-line remote control.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
...not that I'm in the market for a Shuffle (I like my Cowon D2 just fine, thank you) but when I was given a Nano a year or so ago, the first thing I had to do was buy new earbuds. The stock ones that Apple supplies don't fit my ears worth a darn (didn't fit right and kept falling out).
Tying you to only using Apple's buds would have been incredibly stupid unless they offered a variety of buds so you could get a pair that actually worked for you.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Then buy a second-gen Shuffle, they're still being sold. No-one is forcing you to get the new one, you know...
a magnitude of order bigger than the new Shuffle
I don't think you know what that phrase means.
Most other MP3 players are also a magnitude of order bigger than the new Shuffle. That was kind of the point here, the thing is too small to put any controls on.
It's not that much smaller than the second version of the shuffle. They could have put a button or two on it.
Moving the controls to the headphone cord just seems like bad design - completely independent of the fact that it imposes this requirement that your headphones incorporate these controls... I mean, there's the little music player at one end of the cord, and the earphones in my ears at the other end of the cord. I don't want anything in between except wire. There's no reason there should be.
From a "simplicity" standpoint, they've taken a bit of "complexity" off the player, but introduced a new point in-line with the headphones, and re-introduced that "complexity" there. To me that's a lot worse than just making the player slightly larger and incorporating controls. The second version of the Shuffle was a much better, more sensible design for a minimalistic player.
Bow-ties are cool.
Yes, I do.
You are entirely missing the point of the design: It is designed so that you can stuff it in a pocket and forget about it. The controls on the cord are far easier to reach than digging out the player. That is the whole point.
Apple's decision to not include controls on the actual device is stupid.
Why is it stupid? Because you aren't interested in it? News flash, you are not their target audience with this product. Heck, neither am I.
Now I am not at all anti-Apple. I love my MacBook and my 4th generation standard iPod (I don't recall what designation it used to have, but it became the Classic line). But whenever I look at the Shuffle, all I see is a useless device. But just because you or I see a device that neither of us would use, that doesn't mean there isn't a market out there for it. Heck, there must be a market for such a device, otherwise they wouldn't keep making them.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
The P2 supports MP3, WMA, MP2, OGG (only supported in the UMS version), and AAC (M4A and AAC) audio formats. The text viewer only supports plain TXT files. The photo viewer supports only JPEG photos. WMV and SVI videos are supported at resolutions of 480x272 and 320x240 at up to 30 frame/s. In addition it has a touch screen and weighs less then an iPod. It comes with up to 16GB storage.
Accuracy <---------> left field <--------------------> you.
RTFM.
1. speculate or intentionally spread a rumor
2. publish a rebut
3. profit!
No no no
That's not how Slashdot works. Everyone knows not to RTFM; people need these wildly inaccurate, speculative comments to generate flame wars and such. Why else would anyone want to read this?
Accuracy? pifts I say!
You are entirely missing the point of the design: It is designed so that you can stuff it in a pocket and forget about it. The controls on the cord are far easier to reach than digging out the player. That is the whole point.
Right, but you need to have controls somewhere. The player is small and light enough that you can clip it anywhere - so clip it somewhere convenient and use it as your play controls, too. There's no need to introduce a third block containing controls.
Bow-ties are cool.
Does the 3.5mm jack have a control protocol? Why, no, it doesn't. You'll have to put a... proprietary chip... in there somewhere.
Try as you might, you don't have to buy Apple, and Jobs isn't Madoff or the AIG bonus-takers.
When will the Apple haters understand that the Shuffle is not an attack on your human rights? It's just a music player, one you don't like. Big yip. Don't buy it. Buy another one. Carry a 100-pound McIntosh tube amp around on your head if you want. It's a free country, and Apple isn't interfering with you one bit. I think what seems to gall you is that it's popular.
This is sounding a lot like the arguments made against cars during the horse-and-buggy era. You don't like the controls elsewhere than in the... Apple-supplied... headphones, or the products they will undoubtedly license. Okay. Don't buy it. May I interest you in a San Disk, or Samsung, or a Zune? Or for that matter, in a $49 Shuffle with the controller on the face of it, or in an iPod nano?
What about accessories, cases, stereos, cars? What about ongoing firmwire support, not just what comes in the box?
People like to bitch about iPods being pricey, but unlike most manufacturers Apple does not simple take a laptop HD or flash, slap in a batter and spend a week writing the firmwire. Even the first gen iPods get bug-fixes and updates, you won't get that with the Chinese knockoff of the week
Just because there is no DRM, and hence no DMCA problem, doesn't mean you are free to reverse engineer the chip. It could be patented.
OK, so who's going to be the first to create a sleeve that brings back the old shuffle controls firmly attached to the shuffle instead of on a dongle where they're prone to getting trashed, with a regular headphone jack?
>> For the record, we do not believe that the new iPod headphones with in-line remote use DRM that affects audio playback in any way.'"
It would be more reassuring if they left out the "we beleive" and "that affects audio playback" parts of that sentence.
The 10% you're missing is obviously the bit with the taste
Post a photo of yourself so we can see your tasteful look.
Then buy a second-gen Shuffle, they're still being sold. No-one is forcing you to get the new one, you know...
Would you people please stop trying to argue like this? It gets old and it looks dumb. Nobody is arguing that they're being forced to purchase this product, they're making comments about its design in the comments section of a slashdot article about the design of this product.
Or, to put things in your terms for you: Nobody is forcing you to read these comments, you know.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling